Phoola Ram vs Prahalad and Others

Banwari Lal Sharma, J.—The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 14.02.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar Camp Court Bhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 25/1995, whereby he acquitted the respondents-accused while reversing the order dated 16.09.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadra in Criminal Case No. 517/1992 whereby the respondents-accused were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 326, 326/149, 148 and 447 IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that a residential plot was allotted to the petitioner from Gram Panchayat Sagda on 20.05.1979 and the respondents-accused wanted to evict them from the said plot forcibly, therefore, a civil suit was also filed in which order for maintaining status quo was passed. On 17.06.1991, at about 4.00 p.m., when the petitioner-complainant reached on his plot, he saw that all the respondents-accused were trying to break the wall of the plot and when he tried to stop them, then respondent-accused Prahalad, who was having kassi in his hand, put a kassi blow on his hand due to which his index finger cut down.

On the aforesaid information, an FIR No. 54/1991 was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed negative Final Report before the learned trial court. The petitioner-complainant filed protest petition against the negative Final Report on which the learned trial court took cognizance against the respondents-accused on 26.09.1992. The learned trial court, thereafter, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 426 and 323/149 IPC to which they denied and claimed trial. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and proved Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5. The respondents-accused were thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story and examined Pratap (DW-1) and Dinu (DW-2). The learned trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the respondents-accused as aforesaid vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.1995.

Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.12.1995, the respondents-accused preferred appeal before the learned appellate court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 14.02.1996 and the respondents-accused were acquitted.

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 14.02.1996, the petitioner-complainant has preferred this revision petition, which was admitted for hearing vide order dated 01.08.1997 and the record of the courts below was called for.

I have heard Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SS Rajpurohit appearing on behalf of Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondents-accused.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned appellate court has not considered the prosecution evidence in right perspective and has only considered the defence witness and thus wrongly acquitted them. He thus prayed that this revision petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court may be quashed and set aside and that of the learned trial court may be restored.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-accused supported the impugned order and submitted that the police, after investigation, filed negative final report in the court. The injury was self-inflicted. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which vitiates the prosecution case and the learned appellate court, while considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly reversed the judgment of the learned trial court and acquitted the respondents-accused.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner-complainant Phoola Ram (PW-1), in his statement deposed that on the date of incident, when he reached at his residential plot, then he saw the respondents-accused breaking the wall of his plot and when he tried to stop them, respondent-accused Prahalad, who was having kassi in his hand, inflicted a kassi blow due to which his index finger of left hand was cut down. His wife Rammurti, Juglal and Nihal Singh also reached there. Thereafter, he lodged FIR (Ex. P/1).

Rammurti (PW-2), wife of the petitioner-complainant, in her statement corroborated the statement of Phoola Ram (PW-1). She also stated that respondent-accused Prahalad was having kassi in his hand and some others were having lathi and some were not having any weapon. She also stated that she was also beaten but she was not medically examined.

Dr. Brajmohan Choudhary (PW-3) examined the petitioner-complainant and found the following injuries:-

"(i) Incised wound on the index finger of left hand, 1/2"X1/2"X1/2" cut from the hand.

(ii) Bruise 11/2" X 3/4" on the knee with swelling."

Pratap (DW-1) deposed that on the date of incident, there was some scuffle between the mother of Prithvi and Phoolaram. Prahalad, Banshi and Hawa Singh were not there. Thereafter he heard that Phoola has cut his finger.

Dinu (DW-2) deposed that on the date of incident, there was scuffle between Manphool, his wife and Prithvi and his mother. He intervened in the matter and sent them back to their respective houses. Thereafter, after 15-20 minutes, Phoolaram came to his house and told that he has cut his finger and asked him to lodge the case.

From a careful scrutiny of the material available on record and careful scrutiny of evidence, it is clear that there was a dispute regarding allotment of residential plot and in this regard, a civil suit was also pending. Further, the police, after proper investigation, submitted negative final report. The police prepared sight inspection memo but did not find finger and blood stains at the place of occurrence. It has been stated by Dinu (DW-2) that Phoola Ram told him that he himself cut his index finger and asked him to lodge the case. Thus, when the police did not find the finger and blood stains at the place of occurrence, corroborates the fact that the finger was cut by Phoola Ram himself or it may have cut in some other incident. Further, it is not possible that if a blow from kassi is inflicted on hand, then it is not possible that no other injury is caused on the other part of the hand. This also corroborates the fact that the finger of the petitioner did not cut in the manner as alleged.

From a careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it also reveals that petitioner-complainant stated that his index finger cut down, whereas Rammurti (PW-2), who proved sight inspection memo (Ex. P/2), stated that since the blood stains did not remain there, therefore, it was not stated in the sight inspection memo. The petitioner-complainant, in his statement, stated that the respondents-accused were having kassis in their hands whereas Rammurti (PW-2) deposed in her statement that only Prahalad was having kassi in his hand and some others were having lathis and some were not having any weapon in their hands. Thus, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

From the above, it is also clear that there was no unlawful assembly for committing any offence as there is only one injury and the same has been assigned to accused Prahalad. If any unlawful assembly was formed, then others might have also caused injury to the petitioner-complainant but this is not his case.

The police, while investigating the matter, has also found the case false and thus filed negative final report. The learned appellate court also, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, reversed the judgment of the learned trial court and acquitted the respondents-accused, which does not warrant any interference by this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.